Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
Nah I don't think this kind of version of the theory makes sense, why would only static types be creative or normalizing and only dynamic types be dominant or harmonizing? All that it says is "Ji functions are normalizing, Je functions are dominant, Pe functions are creative, Pi functions are harmonizing". That's rather simplicistic, in my opinion.
I assume they derived extroverted-introvert and introverted-extrovert from different degrees of interaction. I indicated each subtype with their corresponding function and that can be slightly misleading because the original article utilizes diagrams to illustrate the manner inwhich dominant interacts with normalizing, etc. The emphasis is not on defining type by function, i.e. static, dynamic, etc., nor definining relationship by function but on how each individual type interacts and given their interactions with one another, certain patterns of behaviour emerges that can be organized into intertype relations disregardless of presumed behaviour that we see in socionics. Hence the rift.

I'll do my best to recall the traits of each type to breath more life into 'this version of the theory'. Take for example the dominant type. For both the logical and ethical types they are more aggressive in behaviour and more critical in their statements. They will assume a position of authority and leadership or try to gain such a position. They behave with disregard for the rules and can even act against the law. For dominants who are introverts, they will not presume leadership roles but certainly remain well aware of who is in control.

The normalizing type is regarded as acting in the interest of society/community/group/etc. The logical type has an aptitude for logical analysis better than all other types. The ethical type is characterized as being highly anxious as to what behaviour fits in with the group. The normalizing type reminds the dominant to obey the rules and the law.

The creative type is characterized as being the most independent minded. They frequently are ingenious with their creations and there is an internal harmony or symmetry within their creations. Their behaviour changes frequently. I can't remember the sensory type too well. The intuitive type is known for fantasies that have an intellectual bent. They also show signs of consideration for the well being of others which the harmonizing type greatly appreciates. They often do not follow through with their plans, i.e. career.

The harmonizing type is characterized as being 'clingy', they can get into a relationship that they can not get themselves out of. They often consider themselves condemed in some way. The feeling types of the harmonizers are the most ethical of all the types. The sensory types pay great attention to their asetheticism, the intutive types do as well but to a lesser degree. The intuitive types can have trouble with autistic behaviour - not sure what that means in a literal sense. From experience I'd guess they say and do things without really comprehending but don't quote me.

If that is too simple then I'd suggest taking a look at the original article because it is worth reading. The manner inwhich I'm interpreting socionics.com and DCHN subtypes is a certain types interaction defines their intertype relationships - functionality of type is not equitable to explain interaction and therefore define intertype relationships. Interaction is the source of knoweldge in psychological typing and bywhich we can determine the intertype relationship; functionality is meaningless without interaction. I'll stop here.